DOCSLIB.ORG

What Is Public Good, and Who and What Decides?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Is Public Good, and Who and What Decides? Centre for Global Higher Education working paper series Public goods and public policy: what is public good, and who and what decides? Ellen Hazelkorn and Andrew Gibson Working paper no. 18 May 2017 Published by the Centre for Global Higher Education, UCL Institute of Education, London WC1H 0AL www.researchcghe.org © Centre for Global Higher Education 2017 ISSN 2398-564X The Centre for Global Higher Education (CGHE) is the largest research centre in the world specifically focused on higher education and its future development. Its research integrates local, national and global perspectives and aims to inform and improve higher education policy and practice. CGHE is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE), and is a partnership based at UCL Institute of Education with Lancaster University, the University of Sheffield and international universities Australian National University (Australia), Dublin Institute of Technology (Ireland), Hiroshima University (Japan), Leiden University (Netherlands), Lingnan University (Hong Kong), Shanghai Jiao Tong University (China), the University of Cape Town (South Africa) and the University of Michigan (US). The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE) is gratefully acknowledged. Public goods and public policy: what is public good, and who and what decides? Ellen Hazelkorn and Andrew Gibson Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 2 1. Negotiating the public good ............................................................... 4 2. Re-defining and re-regulating the ‘social contract’ and governance .................................................................................................. 7 3. System steering: Ireland and the Netherlands ............................ 11 Ireland ...................................................................................................................... 12 Netherlands ............................................................................................................ 13 4. Re-framing the public good ............................................................. 15 Bibliography ............................................................................................. 18 Public goods and public policy: what is public good, and who and what decides?1 Ellen Hazelkorn2 and Andrew Gibson3 Abstract Higher education is usually seen as serving the public good, especially when funded directly by the state, and because of the ‘social benefit efficiency gains and potential equity effects on opportunity and reduced inequality’ (McMahon, 2009, p. 255). Calhoun (2006, p. 19) argues that public support for higher education is only given and maintained according to its capacity, capability, and willingness, to ‘educate citizens in general, to share knowledge, to distribute it as widely as possible in accord with publically articulated purposes’. So what is the public good and what defines it? Recent years have seen many governments adopt the format of a national strategy or development plan for higher education – setting out national objectives. Similarly, many governments (e.g. Ireland, Netherlands, Hong Kong, Finland, New Zealand) are adopting the policy tool of performance agreements or compacts to better align higher education institutions (HEIs) with the national objectives, involving identification of appropriate performance management and indicators (Benneworth, et al., 2011; de Boer, et al., 2015). The process by which national objectives are determined varies but may involve a group comprising national and international ‘experts’, sometimes using consultation mechanisms (open or limited). The concept of public good has played a significant role in (re)positioning higher education over recent years – especially in response to growing demands for greater accountability for all public organisations but also in response to specific concerns about growing higher education access/participation, costs/debt, graduate employability/unemployment, and social/economic impact. This paper takes a practical approach – both in relation to asking ‘what is the public good’ and ‘who defines it’ – by looking at how different countries are approaching the issue. www.researchcghe.org 1 Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition. Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research. (Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, AAUP, 1940) The further expansion of higher education is inevitable and essential if we are to fulfil our aspirations as an innovative and knowledge-based economy, and we must ensure that this happens within a coherent policy environment that serves the advancement of knowledge, wider national development and the public good. (DES, 2011, 33) Introduction Today, as the debate about widening participation, employment and graduate attributes, and the importance of higher education and research intensifies in many countries, the public is asking whether its interests are being served. Those interests inevitably vary depending upon who is asked – students, parents, employers, the media, politicians, etc. US surveys show public concerns about credential relevance and cost are high on the agenda with many people unhappy with levels of accountability (Public Agenda, 2016). An AAC&U survey showed a gap between how students and employers viewed career readiness (Jaschik, 2015). Another manifestation is relative public indifference about higher education, beyond general approval in the abstract (HEFCE, 2010). This suggests that while there is a broadly positive perception of higher education, the public is uninformed of its many functions and contributions. Reports from both the US and UK argue that the public views higher education as too self-serving, rather than being concerned with providing students with a quality education or issues beyond the campus (Immerwahr and Johnson, 2010; Lumina, 2013; Williams, 2016). Similarly, Ireland has witnessed a war-of-words about the quality of its graduates. While there is a consistent view that a college education is important and highly valued (BSA, 2013; Ipsos MORI, 2011), 83 per cent of European students ‘(strongly or rather) agreed that independent reports on the quality of universities and programmes would help students to decide where to study’, and an equally high proportion would like to be involved in quality reports and rankings (Eurobarometer, 2009, 5). Despite popular endorsement of higher education, it is not a popular political sell against competing demands from elsewhere in society, e.g. early schooling through to secondary schools, health and social services. The recent Brexit vote and the US presidential election pick up on the uncertainty of higher education’s impact and relevance, the role of experts as elites, and the extent to which single-minded pursuit of global reputation has generated schisms between local, regional, national and global responsibilities (Goodwin, 2016; Kirk and Scott, 2016). Universities are often www.researchcghe.org 2 seen as ‘islands of affluence, self-importance, and horticultural beauty in seas of squalor, violence, and despair’ (Harkavy quoted in Boyer, 1996, 19). These tensions highlight an underlying message that public support for higher education is only given and maintained according to its capacity and willingness to ‘educate citizens in general, to share knowledge, to distribute it as widely as possible in accord with publically articulated purposes’ (Calhoun, 2006, 19). In recent years, the concept of public interest – or public good – has played a significant role in shaping what the university and the academy do, but also how they position themselves in response to this growing uncertainty and demands for greater accountability. While these calls affect all public organisations, there are specific issues for higher education regarding concerns about access and participation; costs, affordability and debt; employability and graduate attributes; and relevance, and social and economic impact and benefit. Traditionally, defining and asserting the value and quality of higher education has been a function of the academy itself. There has been a strong history of civic and land-grant universities prompted and supported by the state, not just in the UK and US (Goddard et al., 2006) but elsewhere. However, there is an underlying assumption that because (public) universities represent the public good, their actions and outcomes ipso facto are in the public interest. Today, that supposition is coming under pressure. The pendulum is moving from academic self-accountability towards stronger and broader ways of asserting social and public accountability. So, what is the public good, and who or what defines it? Recent years have seen many governments adopt the format of a national strategy or development plan for higher education as a means of setting out national objectives – or arguably shaping the ‘public good’. Some governments (e.g. Ireland, Netherlands, Hong Kong, Finland,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Equilibrium Concept for Public Goods Provision? I - the Convex Case
    Walras-Lindahl-Wicksell: What equilibrium concept for public goods provision ? I - The convex case Monique Florenzano To cite this version: Monique Florenzano. Walras-Lindahl-Wicksell: What equilibrium concept for public goods provision ? I - The convex case. 2009. halshs-00367867 HAL Id: halshs-00367867 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00367867 Submitted on 12 Mar 2009 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Documents de Travail du Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne Walras—Lindahl—Wicksell : What equilibrium concept for public goods provision ? I – The convex case Monique FLORENZANO 2009.09 Maison des Sciences Économiques, 106-112 boulevard de L'Hôpital, 75647 Paris Cedex 13 http://ces.univ-paris1.fr/cesdp/CES-docs.htm ISSN : 1955-611X WALRAS–LINDAHL–WICKSELL: WHAT EQUILIBRIUM CONCEPT FOR PUBLIC GOODS PROVISION? I - THE CONVEX CASE MONIQUE FLORENZANO Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne, CNRS–Universit´eParis 1, monique.fl[email protected] Abstract. Despite the large number of its references, this paper is less a survey than a systematic exposition, in an unifying framework and assuming convexity as well on the consumption side as on the production side, of the different equilibrium concepts elaborated for studying provision of public goods.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Goods in Everyday Life
    Public Goods in Everyday Life By June Sekera A GDAE Teaching Module on Social and Environmental Issues in Economics Global Development And Environment Institute Tufts University Medford, MA 02155 http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae Copyright © June Sekera Reproduced by permission. Copyright release is hereby granted for instructors to copy this module for instructional purposes. Students may also download the reading directly from https://ase.tufts.edu/gdae Comments and feedback from course use are welcomed: Global Development And Environment Institute Tufts University Somerville, MA 02144 http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae E-mail: [email protected] PUBLIC GOODS IN EVERYDAY LIFE “The history of civilization is a history of public goods... The more complex the civilization the greater the number of public goods that needed to be provided. Ours is far and away the most complex civilization humanity has ever developed. So its need for public goods – and goods with public goods aspects, such as education and health – is extraordinarily large. The institutions that have historically provided public goods are states. But it is unclear whether today’s states can – or will be allowed to – provide the goods we now demand.”1 -Martin Wolf, Financial Times 1 Martin Wolf, “The World’s Hunger for Public Goods”, Financial Times, January 24, 2012. 2 PUBLIC GOODS IN EVERYDAY LIFE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................4 1.1 TEACHING OBJECTIVES: .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Goods for Economic Development
    Printed in Austria Sales No. E.08.II.B36 V.08-57150—November 2008—1,000 ISBN 978-92-1-106444-5 Public goods for economic development PUBLIC GOODS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR ECONOMIC GOODS PUBLIC This publication addresses factors that promote or inhibit successful provision of the four key international public goods: fi nancial stability, international trade regime, international diffusion of technological knowledge and global environment. Each of these public goods presents global challenges and potential remedies to promote economic development. Without these goods, developing countries are unable to compete, prosper or attract capital from abroad. The undersupply of these goods may affect prospects for economic development, threatening global economic stability, peace and prosperity. The need for public goods provision is also recognized by the Millennium Development Goals, internationally agreed goals and targets for knowledge, health, governance and environmental public goods. Because of the characteristics of public goods, leaving their provision to market forces will result in their under provision with respect to socially desirable levels. Coordinated social actions are therefore necessary to mobilize collective response in line with socially desirable objectives and with areas of comparative advantage and value added. International public goods for development will grow in importance over the coming decades as globalization intensifi es. Corrective policies hinge on the goods’ properties. There is no single prescription; rather, different kinds of international public goods require different kinds of policies and institutional arrangements. The Report addresses the nature of these policies and institutions using the modern principles of collective action. UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION Vienna International Centre, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Neoliberalism and the Public Good in Higher Education
    BACHELOR THESIS CTP 01.11.2015 Neoliberalism and the Public Good in Higher Education Name: Svenja Mielke Student Number: 930119571030 Chair Group: Law and Governance Supervisors: Michiel Köhne and Elisabet Rasch Wageningen UR *Cover picture by Van Nispen (2015). Contents Contents ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Foreword .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 4 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 1. The Public Good and Neoliberalism ........................................................................................ 7 The Public Good ......................................................................................................................... 7 Neoliberalism .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Market Failure Guide
    Market failure guide A guide to categorising market failures for government policy development and evaluation industry.nsw.gov.au Published by NSW Department of Industry PUB17/509 Market failure guide—A guide to categorising market failures for government policy development and evaluation An external academic review of this guide was undertaken by prominent economists in November 2016 This guide is consistent with ‘NSW Treasury (2017) NSW Government Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis, TPP 17-03, Policy and Guidelines Paper’ First published December 2017 More information Program Evaluation Unit [email protected] www.industry.nsw.gov.au © State of New South Wales through Department of Industry, 2017. This publication is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material provided that the wording is reproduced exactly, the source is acknowledged, and the copyright, update address and disclaimer notice are retained. To copy, adapt, publish, distribute or commercialise any of this publication you will need to seek permission from the Department of Industry. Disclaimer: The information contained in this publication is based on knowledge and understanding at the time of writing July 2017. However, because of advances in knowledge, users are reminded of the need to ensure that the information upon which they rely is up to date and to check the currency of the information with the appropriate officer of the Department of Industry or the user’s independent advisor. Market failure guide Contents Executive summary
    [Show full text]
  • Public Health Is a Public Good
    2 Letter From the Dean 2017 EDITION mailman.columbia.edu n the world’s first modern economic treatise, Public The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith introduced I the principle of public goods—things that, in his words, “may be in the highest degree advantageous Health to a great society, but are, however, of such a nature that the profits could never repay the expense to an Is a individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals can erect.” Lighthouses, Public bridges, and canals made Smith’s list. So, too, did “the most essential parts of education.” Good Nearly years later, Americans prize an array of public goods: our national parks, public transportation, clean air. In economic parlance, such goods are both available to and beneficial for all. Take clean air— anyone can inhale, and one person’s respiration does Dean Linda P. Fried, MD, MPH not deprive others of similar benefit. Let me then be so bold as to propose another public good: population health. Smith may have been a moral philosopher, but at its core, his take on the public good was strictly economic. Public goods spur commerce; illness erodes economic productivity. On that count alone, population health Accepting population demands our attention. Consider malaria. From to , more than one-third of the nations health as a public worldwide with intensive malaria had negative rates of economic growth; good can be the basis malaria-free countries boasted, on average, a . percent rate of growth. Closer to home, the Mailman School’s own Peter Muennig, MD, PhD, has for developing quantified the opportunity costs that accrue when children suer low-level and aligning eective lead exposure: nearly $ million in Flint, Michigan, alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Externalities and Public Goods Introduction 17
    17 Externalities and Public Goods Introduction 17 Chapter Outline 17.1 Externalities 17.2 Correcting Externalities 17.3 The Coase Theorem: Free Markets Addressing Externalities on Their Own 17.4 Public Goods 17.5 Conclusion Introduction 17 Pollution is a major fact of life around the world. • The United States has areas (notably urban) struggling with air quality; the health costs are estimated at more than $100 billion per year. • Much pollution is due to coal-fired power plants operating both domestically and abroad. Other forms of pollution are also common. • The noise of your neighbor’s party • The person smoking next to you • The mess in someone’s lawn Introduction 17 These outcomes are evidence of a market failure. • Markets are efficient when all transactions that positively benefit society take place. • An efficient market takes all costs and benefits, both private and social, into account. • Similarly, the smoker in the park is concerned only with his enjoyment, not the costs imposed on other people in the park. • An efficient market takes these additional costs into account. Asymmetric information is a source of market failure that we considered in the last chapter. Here, we discuss two further sources. 1. Externalities 2. Public goods Externalities 17.1 Externalities: A cost or benefit that affects a party not directly involved in a transaction. • Negative externality: A cost imposed on a party not directly involved in a transaction ‒ Example: Air pollution from coal-fired power plants • Positive externality: A benefit conferred on a party not directly involved in a transaction ‒ Example: A beekeeper’s bees not only produce honey but can help neighboring farmers by pollinating crops.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Goods: Examples
    Public Goods: Examples The classical definition of a public good is one that is non‐excludable and non‐rivalrous. The classic example of a public good is a lighthouse. A lighthouse is: Non‐excludable because it’s not possible to exclude some ships from enjoying the benefits of the lighthouse (for example, excluding ships that haven’t paid anything toward the cost of the lighthouse) while at the same time providing the benefits to other ships; and Non‐rivalrous because if the lighthouse’s benefits are already being provided to some ships, it costs nothing for additional ships to enjoy the benefits as well. This is not like a “rivalrous good,” where providing a greater amount of the good to someone requires either that more of the good be produced or else that less of it be provided to others – i.e., where there is a very real opportunity cost of providing more of the good to some people. Some other examples of public goods: Radio and television: Today no one who broadcasts a radio or TV program “over the air” excludes anyone from receiving the broadcast, and the cost of the broadcast is unaffected by the number of people who actually tune in to receive it (it’s non‐rivalrous). In the early decades of broadcasting, exclusion was not technologically possible; but technology to “scramble” and de‐scramble TV signals was invented so that broadcasters could charge a fee and exclude non‐ payers. Scrambling technology has been superseded by cable and satellite transmission, in which exclusion is possible. But while it’s now technologically possible to produce a TV or radio signal from which non‐payers are excluded (so that it’s not a public good), it’s important to note that because TV and radio signals are non‐rivalrous, they are technologically public goods: it’s technologically possible to provide them without exclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Explain Externalities and Public Goods and How They Affect Efficiency of Market Outcomes.”
    Microeconomics Topic 9: “Explain externalities and public goods and how they affect efficiency of market outcomes.” Reference: Gregory Mankiw’s Principles of Microeconomics, 2nd edition, Chapters 10 and 11. The Efficiency of Private Exchange A private market transaction is one in which a buyer and seller exchange goods or services for money or other goods or services. The buyers and sellers could be individuals, corporations, or both. Voluntary private market transactions will occur between buyers and sellers only if both parties to the transaction expect to gain. If one of the parties expected to end up worse off as a result of the transaction, that transaction would not occur. Buyers and sellers have an incentive to find all the voluntary, private market transactions that could make them better off. When they have found and made all such possible transactions, then the market has achieved “an efficient allocation of resources.” This means that all of the resources that both buyers and sellers have are allocated so that these buyers and sellers are as well off as possible. For these reasons, private market transactions between buyers and sellers are usually considered to be “efficient” because these transactions result in all the parties being as well off as possible, given their initial resources. A more precise way of defining efficient production of a good is that we should produce more of a good whenever the added benefits are greater than the added costs, but we should stop when the added costs exceed the added benefits. Summary of conditions for efficient production (1) all units of the good are produced for which the value to consumers is greater than the costs of production, and (2) no unit of the good is produced that costs more to produce than the value it has for the consumers of that good.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Goods
    Public Goods 131 Undergraduate Public Economics Emmanuel Saez UC Berkeley 1 OUTLINE Chapter 7 7.1 Optimal Provision of Public Goods 7.2 Private Provision of Public Goods 7.3 Public Provision of Public Goods 7.4 Conclusion 2 PUBLIC GOODS: INTRODUCTION Private trash collection, financed by a voluntary fee paid by neighborhood residents, faces the classic free rider problem. Goods that suffer from this free rider problem are known in economics as public goods. 3 PUBLIC GOODS: DEFINITONS Pure public goods: Goods that are perfectly non-rival in consumption and are non-excludable Non-rival in consumption: One individual's consumption of a good does not affect another's opportunity to consume the good. Non-excludable: Individuals cannot deny each other the op- portunity to consume a good. Impure public goods: Goods that satisfy the two public good conditions (non-rival in consumption and non-excludable) to some extent, but not fully. 4 7 . 1 Optimal Provision of Public Goods Chapter 7 Public 7 Goods Chapter © 2007 Worth Publishers Public Finance and Public Policy, 2/e, Jonathan Gruber 4 of 21 7 . 1 Optimal Provision of Public Goods Optimal Provision of Private Goods Chapter 7 Public 7 Goods Chapter © 2007 Worth Publishers Public Finance and Public Policy, 2/e, Jonathan Gruber 6 of 21 OPTIMAL PROVISION OF PRIVATE GOODS Two goods: ic (ice-cream) and c (cookies) with prices Pic;Pc Pc = 1 is normalized to one (num´erairegood): Two individuals B and J Consumers demand different quantities of the good at the same market price. The optimality condition
    [Show full text]
  • Public Goods Example and Problem1 Instructional Primer2
    Public Goods Example and Problem1 Instructional Primer2 Public goods share traits uniquely different than those of private goods. To begin with public goods are the byproduct of a market failure, typically arising from a collective action problem. For example, many in society want to enjoy the good, such as a road, bridge, or park, but few are interested in paying for it. Were private producers to provide the product the public’s demand may not be fully realized through the collection of revenues and the producer’s efforts may fail. Additionally, a public good is often deemed to be “good” for society by societal leaders, but may not be something that member of society are prepared or able to pay for through a usual system of providing and charging for the good. As such, most public goods are funded largely if not entirely through public coffers funded through the receipt of taxes. Public goods have two characteristics that set them apart from private goods: they are non-rival and non-excludable. By this we mean that one person’s use of the good does not exclude another from also using and enjoying it (non-excludable) and as such consumers have no motivation to compete for the good (non-rival). Whereas the price for a private good purchased by one consumer is typically equal to the price any consumer might be required to pay for the good, the price for a public good is the sum of the prices consumers are required to pay for the good (typically the result of the collection of taxes) and we consider this price to be equal to the marginal cost of providing the good.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Goods* by Matthew Kotchen† December 8, 2012
    Public Goods* By Matthew Kotchen† December 8, 2012 Pure public goods have two defining features. One is ‘non‐rivalry,’ meaning that one person’s enjoyment of a good does not diminish the ability of other people to enjoy the same good. The other is ‘non‐excludability,’ meaning that people cannot be prevented from enjoying the good. Air quality is an important environmental example of a public good. Under most circumstances, one person’s breathing of fresh air does not reduce air quality for others to enjoy, and people cannot be prevented from breathing the air. Public goods are defined in contrast to private goods, which are, by definition, both rival and excludable. A sandwich is a private good because one person’s consumption clearly diminishes its value for someone else, and sandwiches are typically excludable to all individuals not willing to pay. (This scenario does, of course, assume the proverbial no free lunch.) Many environmental resources are characterized as public goods, including water quality, open space, biodiversity, and a stable climate. These examples stand alongside the classic public goods of lighthouses, national defense, and knowledge. In some cases, however, it is reasonable to question whether environmental resources (and even the classic examples) are public goods in a fully pure sense. With open space, for example, congestion among those enjoying it may cause some degree of rivalry, and all open spaces are not accessible to everyone. Nevertheless, many environmental resources come close to satisfying the definition of pure public goods, and even when not exact (possibly closer to an impure public good), the basic concept is useful for understanding the causes of many environmental problems and potential solutions.
    [Show full text]